Loading...
PC MINS 20081125 Approved January 917,-2m/ CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 25, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perestam at 7:07p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Tetreault led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Knight, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Lewis, and Chairman Perestam. Absent: Commissioner Gerstner was excused. Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, Senior Planner Alvarez, Associate Planner Fox, Associate Planner Mikhail, and Assistant Planner Kim. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that at their November 18, 2008 the City Council formally adopted the Code Amendment implementing the Green Building Ordinance. In addition, the City Council heard the appeal of the Planning Commission's conditional approval of the St. John Fisher master plan and conducted a site visit of the property on November 22nd. The public hearing was continued to the meeting of December 16tH Director Rojas distributed one item of correspondence regarding agenda item No. 3 and one item of correspondence for agenda item No. 6. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): Lois Karp discussed her dissatisfaction after learning from staff that she and others who wrote letters to the City regarding Marymount College will not get a written response unless the Planning Commission makes a motion to direct RBF to answer these letters. She stated that the Traffic and Safety meetings that were scheduled have been cancelled and there has been no opportunity to discuss traffic and parking. She asked that the Planning Commission not agendize the Marymount College Conditional Use Permit until the concerned residents have received answers to their questions from RBF and to have a chance to a the parking and traffic questions with the consultant. Jack Karp also asked why the Planning Department does not answer inquiries, and that why the Planning Commission must make a motion to have these questions answered. Tom Redfield stated that the frustration is with the process that they have recently been told they must follow. Director Rojas stated that the Planning Commission cannot take any action on this item at this time as decisions cannot be made outside of the public hearing; however, he noted that there is a procedure for the public to raise issues with the Marymount College project to the Planning Commission during the public hearings, and it is extremely unfortunate that the speakers are confused by this procedure. Commissioner Tetreault noted that there was to be a meeting with the Traffic Safety Commission regarding Marymount College, and asked staff the status of that meeting. Director Rojas explained that the public notice went out for the Traffic Safety Commission meeting for December 8th, however staff was just informed that there will not be a quorum and the meeting will have to be postponed,_ most likely to a time in January. Commissioner Tetreault asked how the postponement of the Traffic Safety Commission meeting affects the sequencing of hearings and the upcoming Planning Commission meeting and schedule for hearing this item. Director Rojas answered that the Planning Commission's last action on this item was to continue the public hearing to December 9t", at which time staff will begin presentation of the project applications to the Planning Commission. It will be up to the Planning Commission on December 9t" as to how the remaining review schedule will be affected due to the lack of a Traffic Safety Commission meeting and input. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Annual review for Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2008-00086): 27501 Western Avenue Senior Planner Schonborn noted a typo on page 9 of the conditions of approval, No. 1(D) should read, "Further, the existing bell may remain as a decorative feature only, and the bell or bell recordings are not allowed to be used in conjunction with the church buildings." Planning Commission Minutes November 25,2008 Page 2 Vice Chairman Lewis moved to approve the Consent Calendar, thereby adopting P.C. Resolution 2008-47 conditionally approving a revision to the Green Hills Cemetery Master Plan as presented in the Resolution, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved, (4-1-1) with Commissioner Knight dissenting and Chairman Perestam recused. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Tract Map amendment, Conditional Use Permit revision & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2007-00061): 2902 Vista Del Mar Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and the need for the various applications. He explained how the project has been redesigned and modified to attempt to address the concerns of the Planning Commission. He stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings and was recommending approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Knight noted the reduction in square footage of the project, and asked how much of the reduction was a result of the removal of the basement. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the majority of the square footage eliminated from the project was the basement area. Commissioner Knight asked if the actual above ground structure size has changed. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the footprint size has not changed. Vice Chairman Lewis noted that in the Commission packet was a real estate ad for the property in which it states everything has been approved and permits can be obtained by the new owners when they desire. He asked if the Planning Department has approved the architectural plans and the Building Department has approved the plans for the property. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that no plans have been approved for the property. Commissioner Knight noted the project has been moved farther to the east thereby changing the setbacks, and asked if this will affect the nearby habitat noted in the biological report in terms of increased setbacks for fuel modification. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that staff has added condition No. 10 that will address this concern. Planning Commission Minutes November 25,2008 Page 3 Dominic Didomenicantonio explained that the property is on the market and he'll wait to see what will happen with it. He discussed the new design of the proposed residence and stated he was available for questions. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that at the previous meeting many of the Commissioners expressed concern with regards to the size of the house. He felt the applicant has made substantial changes to address these concerns and the size of the home is not significantly different than other homes in the neighborhood. He did not think the intention of the applicant to either live in the home or build it and sell it should affect the decision of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to approve staff's recommendation to approve the project, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Commissioner Knight stated that he had an issue with the size, bulk, and mass of the house at the last hearing and this revision does not change the above ground bulk and mass of the structure. He appreciated the change in the architectural style, as it helps the issue somewhat, however he did not think it was reduced enough for him to recommend approval of the project. He suggested a revision on page 9 for clarification that would say "as depicted in the Site Plan". Commissioner Ruttenberg accepted that revision to the motion, as did Commissioner Tetreault. Vice Chairman Lewis agreed that whether or not the applicant plans to sell the lot is of no relevance, but was concerned that the property was being offered for sale with the misrepresentation that permits can be pulled and plans have been approved. He stated that he could not support the project, as he too felt that it was too large for the neighborhood. Commissioner Tomblin noted that this is a very large lot, and felt that the proposed house fits well on the lot and now blends in well with the neighborhood. He was pleased with the architectural changes made to the design. He stated that he will now be able to support the project. Chairman Perestam was also pleased with the redesign of the project and noted that the three issues of concern he had with the original project have now been addressed. Commissioner Tetreault felt that the square footage and redesign of the house have addressed his concerns with neighborhood compatibility and bulk and mass. He felt that this is a neighborhood of large conspicuous homes that are meant to be seen. The motion to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-48 thereby approving the Tract Map Amendment, Conditional Use Permit Revision, and Grading Permit was approved, (4-2) with Commissioner Knight and Vice Chairman Lewis dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes November 25,2008 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Conditional Use Permit revision (Case No. ZON2008-00341): 29661 Western Avenue Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, clarifying that the request is for four individual antenna on a single base unit. She explained that the Planning Commission originally approved the Conditional Use Permit for this project, however once construction began it was discovered that due to the close proximity to existing utilities, it would not be feasible. Therefore, there was a need for this requested revision. She showed plans of the proposed antenna placement and explained how this plan differs from the original approval. She stated that staff was able to make all of the necessary findings with this revision and staff was recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit Revision as conditioned in the staff report. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if this project will create any view impairment, as opposed to significant view impairment. Assistant Planner Kim explained that staff had some minor concerns regarding potential view impairment to residents living on the top floor of a nearby building, however after the public notification staff has not received any opposition or concerns from these residents. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Jason Kozora (representing T Mobile) explained that a problem came up in that the existing power lines must be at least 10 feet away from the front of the antennas, which they were not. Therefore, the antennas had to be relocated onto the roof. He stated that he has read the staff report and conditions of approval and is in agreement with staff's recommendations. Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-49 thereby approving the revision to the existing Conditional Use Permit, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Tetreault. Approved, (6-0). 4. Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2008-00477): 5801 Crestridge Road Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the proposed project and displayed photographs depicting the site. She explained that the new parapet will impair views from two homes on Mistridge Drive, and showed photographs taken from these homes. She noted that staff has determined, however, that the view impairment to these homes is not significant. She stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings and was recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit as Planning Commission Minutes November 25,2008 Page 5 conditioned in the staff report. She noted that the applicant has agreed to lower the equipment and parapet by two feet and that the necessary changes to the language in the Resolution to reflect this change will have to be made. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Justin Robinson (representing Verizon Wireless) felt that staff report was extremely clear. He noted that in response to a letter, he was able to reanalyze and lower each of the screens by two feet to address the issues of the surrounding neighbors. He felt this would result in a significant reduction in-the view impairment to the neighbors. He asked for clarification to condition No. 17 of the conditions of approval, which states that Verizon is to provide wireless communications technology reports every five years. He requested that, since the Conditional Use Permit is only valid for ten years, that they be run conterminously. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Robinson the reason for the need of a seven foot tall antenna. Mr. Robinson explained that the height of the antenna has been reduced to four feet, primarily because of the technology that Verizon is using. He stated that a four foot antenna will give Verizon the most usage for the site, otherwise using smaller antennas would result in the need for more sites. Commissioner Knight asked if there was a reason Verizon didn't use the existing pole on the site. Mr. Robinson answered that the pole is not available, as there are existing tenants on the site. Commissioner Tetreault explained that the Planning Commission requests technology reports to ensure that antennas that are no longer being used are removed. He asked Mr. Robinson if Verizon has a mechanism by which the City can be notified over the next ten years when equipment that is in place will no longer be used. Mr. Robinson answered that Verizon will be able to notify the City when equipment is no longer being used. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Robinson if he would oppose condition No. 17 being modified to say that Verizon will notify the City within 90 days of the equipment being decommissioned. Mr. Robinson had no objection to such a modification. Larry Ricketts (representing The Canterbury) stated he was available to answer any questions. Planning Commission Minutes November 25,2008 Page 6 Vice Chairman Lewis asked if there was any provision in their agreement with Verizon for removal of the equipment and the extended parapet. Mr. Rickets answered that if there currently is not such a provision one will be added. Anthony Arand realized that the Planning Commission has already approved this project, which impairs the view from his parent's home on Mistridge Drive, and that this proposed revision will further impair the view. He asked if this project was going to benefit the residents at the Canterbury or if the project and revenues would directly affect the homeowners on Mistridge Drive. He felt that the applicant has operated the facility in violation of their original Conditional Use Permit and requested that they operate in compliance with their first Conditional Use Permit before granting them another. He stated that there are alternate sites on the east side of the facility that do not impact anybody's view. He noted there are existing utility poles on the site and questioned if the applicant has asked Edison for access to these poles. He questioned if this is a requirement of the Wireless Antenna Guidelines. He stated that before the original project was built he had a full view of the Peninsula shopping center and high school, which are gone. These antennas will take out what is left of the high school view. Justin Robinson (in rebuttal) stated that Edison was contacted with a request to locate on a number of the poles, and they were told it would not be feasible to do so. He stated that antennas at this site are much needed for the residents, staff, and people traveling in and around the site. He noted that this area is a.hole in the coverage, as opposed to a weak site. Commissioner Knight asked why the power poles were not feasible. Mr. Robinson explained that there are different types of Edison power poles, and on many poles they are able to locate their equipment. Edison has told them that there is no room to locate the equipment on these poles and the poles are not available. Commissioner Knight asked if alternate locations had been looked at on the site, noting that there are instances where poles are placed along the face of the building rather than the top of the building. Mr. Robinson explained that due to the layout of the building, any antennas placed on the side of the building will be in the view of the residents. Commissioner Tetreault asked if moving the antennas within the building, which would allow for a further reduction in the screening walls, would decrease the effectiveness of the antennas. Mr. Robinson answered that it would not reduce the effectiveness of the antennas, but it also would not reduce the height of the structure. He felt that the further the structure was moved back, the more it would impair views. Planning Commission Minutes November 25,2008 Page 7 Commissioner Knight asked staff if they felt moving the antennas back would affect views from other properties. Assistant Planner Kim answered that staff felt the only views affected are from the two residences on Mistridge Drive. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve staff's recommendation as presented in the staff report with the corrections to reflect the two foot change in height and the change in condition No. 17 that staff will be notified within 90 days of decommissioning any equipment, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Vice Chairman Lewis moved to amend the motion to require that Verizon and the Canterbury enter into an agreement that the equipment and parapet wall be removed as soon as the equipment is no longer functioning. Commissioner Tetreault agreed to the amendment, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to amend the motion to add a condition that, in addition to entering into an agreement with Verizon regarding the removal of the equipment, that the Canterbury must have the equipment removed from the site when it is no longer functioning. Commissioner Tetreault agreed to the amendment, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the concerns expressed by Mr. Arand. In looking at the photographs presented by staff, he felt that the view that will be obstructed by this project is less than significant. He noted that Mr. Arand had referred to a view of the high school, however he noted that the view to be considered is of the city lights or mountains. Therefore, he was able to make the necessary findings to recommend approval of the project. Commissioner Knight stated that when he first reviewed this project he was concerned about the large parapet being proposed. However, there has been a two foot reduction proposed for the parapet which he felt helps quite a bit. He also felt, however, that the applicant should look at alternative sites to try to avoid any view impact to the neighbors. He therefore could not support the motion. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if they felt there would be a violation of the Telecommunications Act if the Planning Commissioner were to instruct the applicant to go back and study the situation again to other possible locations which would provide them with the coverage they seek while mitigating the negative view impacts that this one provides. Planning Commission Minutes November 25,2008 Page 8 Director Rojas explained that if the Commission finds they cannot make the findings for the Conditional Use Permit, they can direct the applicant to look at other alternatives. However, if the applicant exhausts those alternatives and cannot get the coverage needed, the Planning Commission may be in the position where they cannot deny the requested action. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that denying the application would put the City in violation, explaining that the Telecommunications Act requires the City to demonstrate that there was substantial evidence to deny this application. While Mr. Arand may feel that this project causes substantial view impairment, he does not think by City Guidelines there is substantial view impairment. Vice Chairman Lewis found it significant that the applicant said that they could locate the equipment in a different spot and not lose effectiveness. He felt that rather than deny the application, the Planning Commission might continue the public hearing to allow the applicant the opportunity to study other options. He also wanted to clarify in his amendment to the motion that his intent was that the equipment be removed once it is no longer in use. Commissioner Tetreault accepted that clarification as part of his original motion. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that a time frame should be attached to the period of non- operation. Vice Chairman Lewis agreed, suggested that the wording say that the equipment be removed if non-operational for a period of 90 days or more. Commissioner Tetreault did not accept that, stating that the idea is that when the equipment is no longer useful and useable to Verizon they have to remove it from the site. He did not think that exact language was necessary. He added that he made the original motion for purposes of discussion, and has now determined that he will vote against the motion. He explained that with the questions raised regarding the location of the antennas on the property and how they can possibly be relocated on the property, he would like to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant to fully explore all possibilities and report back to the Planning Commission. Chairman Perestam stated that he is supportive of the project, noting that the modifications that come out of this proposed continuance will most likely be very minor. Commissioner Ruttenberg referred back to staff's photographs taken from the residence on Mistridge Drive. He felt that in any other case the Planning Commission would look at these photos and easily determine there is no significant view impact, and approve the project. He felt that this project creates no significant view impact and is entitled to an approval. Planning Commission Minutes November 25,2008 Page 9 Commissioner Tetreault didn't necessarily disagree, however he noted that this is not the case of a homeowner trying to improve his property. This is a case where a piece of equipment is going to be placed on a property, and there may be the opportunity to place it somewhere else on the property where it will have less of an impact to the neighbors. Chairman Perestam asked Mr. Robinson if he felt that there was a possibility to relocate the equipment elsewhere on the property that may have the potential to cause less of a view impact to the neighbors. Mr. Robinson answered that moving the equipment would mean adding additional equipment to the property. He noted that the current configuration of equipment uses the existing roof lines to help hide the equipment. He explained that the equipment in the rear has to be where it is located because it is coming up on the hill to try and serve the area up the hill. Moving the equipment closer to the front will cause it to shoot into the hillside. Vice Chairman Lewis asked, speaking only of the equipment in the rear, if it is moved elsewhere on the roof will the effectiveness of the antennas decrease or will it have the same effectiveness no matter where it is on the roof. Mr. Robinson answered that the closer the antennas are moved to the front, the less effective they become. The motion to approve the project failed, (3-3) with Commissioners Tetreault, Knight, and Vice Chairman Lewis dissenting. Commissioner Knight noted that the action deadline for this application is December 15th, and that the agenda for the meeting of December 11th is already very full. Therefore, there was a possibility that this item could not be heard until the meeting in January, and would need an extension granted to do so. Chairman Perestam asked Mr. Robinson, as the applicant, if he would agree to a one- time 90 day extension per the Permit Streamling Act. Mr. Robinson stated that he did not think he could bring anything new to the Planning Commission and therefore did not grant the extension, stating that if the Planning Commission chooses to deny the project he would rather take it to the City Council on appeal. Commissioner Tetreault clarified that he was asking that Verizon make a good faith effort to research and investigate other locations on the property that will still meet their needs and that may have less impact to the neighbors. If Verizon were to come back to the Planning Commission and say they have made every effort to do so, and there is no viable alternative, he would most likely vote to approve the project. Planning Commission Minutes November 25,2008 Page 10 Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of December 11, 2008 to allow the applicant the opportunity to explore possible alternative antenna locations, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (5- 1) with Commissioner Ruttenberg dissenting. 5. Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2008- 00144): 5321 Middlecrest Drive Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. She stated that staff believes all of the applicable findings can be made to recommend approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing, Gustavo Galyez (applicant) stated he was available to answer any questions. There being no questions, Chairman Perestam closed the public hearing. Commissioner Knight felt this was a project that is adding square footage with a minimum amount of impact in terms of bulk and mass as viewed from the street. He therefore was in favor of the project. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2008-50 thereby approving the Height Variation, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). 6. Variance (Case No. ZON2008-00489): 28060 Lobrook Drive Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report, explaining there are two Variance requests before the Planning Commission. The first request is for the staircase into the front yard setback. She explained that staff feels this Variance is acceptable, as the only ability to get in the front door is via the front door. She explained the second Variance request is for a new wall associated with the staircase, which staff cannot support based on the Code requirement for no more than a 42 inch freestanding wall in the front yard setback. She stated that staff did not think the freestanding wall was necessary to accommodate the new structure. She also noted correspondence that was submitted by the applicant which points out several other properties in the neighborhood with walls in the front yard setback that are taller than the proposed wall. She stated that there are no Variances associated with the walls taller than 42 inches in the front yard setbacks. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if staff was able to determine if these walls pre-dated incorporation. Planning Commission Minutes November 25,2008 Page 11 Associate Planner Mikhail explained that these walls may have been constructed when the original homes were built or they may have been constructed at a later date, as there are no permits on file for any of them. She noted that many of the walls are retaining walls, noting that in the late correspondence the last three referenced are retaining walls associated with driveways. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. George Shaw (architect) stated that he was surprised that he had to file for two separate Variances for the project, and was willing to work with staff and the Planning Commission on the wall. He explained that he has an alternate plan for the wall that he can submit to staff or the Planning Commission. He stated that he is here to hear the Planning Commission's suggestions. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if this alternate design will take away the need for the second Variance request. Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the alternate design does not do away with the Variance request, but it does lessen the impact of the wall. Commissioner Ruttenberg explained that he did not have issues with the Variance request for the staircase and would vote to approve the staircase. However, based on the plans submitted, he could not support the Variance request for the wall. John Pack (owner) stated that he would be very disappointed if his project was not approved. He pointed out that he is one of three houses on this street that has this type of stairway. He did not think the Planning Commission could look and compare his house to any of the other houses in the area. He felt that an open staircase would not look good aesthetically. He also felt that in his neighborhood a wall over 42 inches in his front yard setback is the norm rather than the exception. He felt that, unless the City is going to pursue the other walls in the neighborhood, his should be allowed to be built and conform with the rest of the neighborhood. He also did not think it would be fair to ask him to put bushes or shrubs under the stairs. Commissioner Tetreault also did not have any issues with the Variance request for the staircase. In discussing the wall, he felt that if the Planning Commission thinks they can make the necessary findings for a potentially redesigned wall, they should be able to make those same findings for this currently proposed wall. He also agreed with the applicant and architect that this current design is a better, more aesthetic design. Commissioner Knight felt that there are alternative designs that can be used to alleviate the particular findings that need to be made for the wall. As an example, he suggested using an entry point that is closer to the garage. Vice Chairman Lewis agreed that there is a middle ground that can be achieved. He also agreed with the applicant and architect that the application of these findings might Planning Commission Minutes November 25,2008 Page 12 result in a design that does not look as nice as what is currently before the Commission, however he cannot make the necessary findings to support this design. Therefore, the only option he has is to try to find a middle ground that is aesthetically pleasing. Chairman Perestam stated he is a very strong advocate of keeping structures to 42 inches in the front yard setback. He felt that this is one of the major design elements that make the community less urbanized. He understood that many homes in the neighborhood already have a wall over 42 inches, but did not think that adding the problem is the right solution. He stated he is not in favor of the Variance for the wall at this time, but would be in favor of a continuance and redesign. Chairman Perestam noted that to continue the public hearing would require a time extension from the applicant, and asked Mr. Shaw if he would be willing to grant this one time 90 day extension. Mr. Shaw was not sure he could design a wall that would not need a variance and still be aesthetically pleasing. He pointed out that he considers the wall a stair and did not think the two should be separated. Director Rojas explained that staff's opinion is that to support a Variance, the structure cannot be a wall. He suggested that if modifications can be made to the wall so that it can be considered part of the stairs or it can be reduced enough so that it doesn't have the same impact as a wall then findings might be able to be made to support a Variance request. He noted that the architect has already redesigned the wall and if there is consensus to look at this redesign, it can be looked at during this meeting and a decision made as to whether or not the Variance findings can be made on the redesigned structure. He explained that if the Planning Commission decides to approve the stairs but deny the wall as designed, it would force the architect to come back with a support post or some type of design that doesn't need a Variance. Commissioner Ruttenberg questioned if the stairs and wall were joined and made out of the same material, and the wall were part of the actual structure of the stairs, if the wall would then need a separate Variance. Chairman Perestam stated that continuing this public hearing would then allow the architect the opportunity to design such an alternative for staff to review and determine if a Variance for that structure would be needed. Commissioner Tetreault suggested that the Planning Commission review the alternate design that Mr. Shaw has before proceeding with any decisions. Staff distributed the modified plans to the Planning Commission. Chairman Perestam asked staff if they interpreted this modified structure as a wall or a support structure. Planning Commission Minutes November 25,2008 Page 13 Associate Planner Mikhail answered that per the Code, it is still considered a wall that exceeds the "by-right" height limit of 42 inches for freestanding walls within the front yard setback. She noted on the plans where the 42 inch height limit was located and the area of the wall that would require a Variance. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the alternative wall design, thereby approving the Variance for the wall and to approve the Variance for the accessory structure in the setback, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Shaw why the entrance cannot be from the other direction off of the driveway. Mr. Shaw stated that there are problems with the walk terminating at the driveway. He explained that is where the broken angles occur, as there is quite a variation in the riser height and the driveway. He stated that one of the reasons for this project is to make a safer staircase that is code compliant. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Shaw if there was a plan to landscape in front of this structure. Mr. Shaw answered that obviously the owners would landscape the area, as they would not want to leave the area bare. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they are able to make the necessary findings to support a Variance with this redesigned wall. Director Rojas answered that staff felt this structure constitutes a wall, per the Code definition. Commissioner Tetreault stated he was able to make the necessary findings to support the Variance for the redesigned wall. He explained that he could make the first finding that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances because of the short setback to the street and the access to the house is on the second floor. He felt this is extraordinary, as this is not the way most homes are designed and it presents design and architectural challenges to the homeowner that most homeowners do not face. Second, forcing the homeowners to have a skeletal frame for a staircase which looks like the one they are trying to replace would force them to have an unattractive home and he could therefore make finding No. 2. Commissioner Ruttenberg explained that he would very much like to approve the redesigned wall, however he did not think the redesigned wall changes how he looks at the findings that have to be made. He stated that he currently cannot make the necessary findings to support the Variance for the wall. Vice Chairman Lewis agreed that as much as he likes the proposed new design for the wall, he is unable to make the findings to support the Variance. Planning Commission Minutes November 25,2008 Page 14 Commissioner Knight stated that he was hoping to get a different design coming off of the driveway that would require less of a rise and give the ability to create an attractive wall along the front less than 42 inches in height. He felt that this redesign is an attractive design, however the architect has indicated that the design would not be practical and would not be safe. He explained that he has not yet decided if he can make the necessary findings, but made it clear that whatever other walls exist in the neighborhood do not apply to making findings 1 and 2 for this Variance. The motion to approve the Variance for the accessory structure in the setback and to approve the Variance for the redesigned wall failed, (2-4) with Commissioners Ruttenberg, Knight, Vice Chairman Lewis, and Chairman Perestam dissenting. Associate Planner Mikhail noted that the Resolution presented by staff reflects a decision approving the Variance for the stairs and denying the Variance for the wall. She explained that this gives the architect the option to redesign the wall so that it does not need a Variance, and therefore will not need to come back before the Planning Commission for approval of the wall. Commissioner Knight moved to approve staff's recommendation to approve the Variance for the new stairs and to deny the Variance request for the proposed wall, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to amend the motion to separate the vote, thereby voting separately on the approval of the Variance for the stairs and denial of the Variance for the wall. Commissioner Knight accepted the amendment to the motion, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. The motion to approve staff's recommendation to approve the Variance for the staircase was approved, (6-0). Commissioner Ruttenberg did not think the other motion was necessary as he felt more would be accomplished by continuing the public hearing for the wall. He explained that directing the architect to redesign the wall will either result in a wall that may not require a Variance and therefore need only staff approval, or it may result in a design that the Planning Commission can comfortably make the necessary findings to approve the Variance. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to substitute the motion for denial of the Variance for the wall to a motion to continue the public hearing for the Variance for the wall. Planning Commission Minutes November 25,2008 Page 15 Director Rojas explained that staff would have to present a revised Resolution on the Consent Calendar of the next meeting to reflect the approval of the Variance for the staircase, and the public hearing for the wall only would be continued to the December 11 th meeting. Commissioner Knight withdrew his motion in favor of the substitute motion, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Commissioner Knight noted that the December 11th meeting is very full, and suggested it be put on a later agenda, which would require a 90 day extension from the applicant. Mr. Shaw agreed to the one time 90 day extension. Director Rojas noted that since the two remaining meetings in December are very full, that the item be continued to the January 13, 2009 meeting. Commissioner Ruttenberg amended his motion to continue the public hearing for the Variance on the wall to the January 13, 2009 meeting, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. The motion was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Tetreault dissenting. 7. View Restoration Permit interpretation hearing (Case No. VRP 203): 3632 Vigilance Drive Commissioner Tetreault stated that given this is a request for an interpretation of a prior Planning Commission decision which he did not participate in, he felt it would be improper for him to make comments on the interpretation of the decision. He therefore recused himself from this item. Senior Planner Alvarez presented the staff report, explaining that this interpretation request submitted by the applicant is to determine whether the 2006 Planning Commission decision on how certain trees were to be cut on the foliage owner's property was carried out. He gave a brief history of the case, the decision, and the subsequent appeal to the City Council regarding the maintenance schedule. He explained that if the Planning Commission finds that the original trimming done on the Monterey Pine done in 2007 does not meet the Commission's original intent, then the applicant is requesting that additional tree branch removal occur to meet that goal. However, if the Planning Commission believes in their review of the matter that the Monterrey Pine complies with the Commission's intent, then no further action will be needed on the matter. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the only tree before the Planning Commission is the Monterey Pine, and anything else related to the project will be handled during the course of regular trimming. Planning Commission Minutes November 25,2008 Page 16 Senior Planner Alvarez answered that was correct. Director Rojas added that this is an interpretation hearing to determine if the Planning Commission's intent was met. Chairman Perestam opened the public hearing. Yossef Aelonv (applicant) stated that in the final cutting of the Monterey Pine he felt it was prematurely terminated under duress by a former staff member. He noted that at the one year review three members of the Planning Commission visited his property and all three commented that the tree was not trimmed as much as they had expected and the window was not created as described. He noted that the Monterey Pine has done quite well since the initial cutting and was not in distress. Ginette Aelonv stated that everyone who comes to her home is stunned at the way the Monterey Pine has been cut and that this is the result of the view restoration ordinance. She asked the Planning Commission to instruct staff as to what their intent truly is in regards to the Monterey Pine. Paul Kuliis felt that his Monterey Pine was trimmed in compliance with the Resolution. He stated that the wording in the Resolution was very clear directing the removal of selected limbs in a specified area, and not removal of all limbs in that area. He stated that the trimming method was approved by the Planning Commission in order to preserve the Pine and its value to his property. He did not feel it was fair to the Commission or to him to hold an interpretation hearing a year and half after the trimmings were done, and it should have been done when the trimmings were fresh. Debbie Kuliis explained that she is extremely frustrated, as two years ago the decision was made, and a year and half ago was the last of the many cuttings done on the tree. She has also been brought before the City Council and is now back before the Planning Commission. She did not think this should be an open ended process and there should be some type of time limit set on these types of interpretation hearings. She questioned if in five years she will still be before the Planning Commission regarding this same issue. She stated that she has done everything asked of her in a timely manner and has been more than cooperative. She did not feel the Pine tree needs any more trimming and is in compliance with the Planning Commission's direction in the Resolution. Mr. Aelonv (in rebuttal) stated that at the City Council meeting someone showed a photo and showed the limbs in question, and at that time it was thought the foliage owner would agree to that trimming if they agreed not to continue the proceedings. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Aelony to identify the branches he felt needed to be cut. Planning Commission Minutes November 25,2008 Page 17 Mr. Aelony identified two branches on a photograph and said there is a third branch which cannot be seen in the photograph. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Aelony if he would be satisfied if the two branches were to be removed. Mr. Aelony stated that three is a third branch and this branch may be shown in another photo with red circles on both sides of the tree. Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr. Aelony if the foliage owner did not perform maintenance trimming on schedule in April 2008. Mr. Aelony answered that the trimming was not done. Chairman Perestam asked staff when the next required maintenance trimming was scheduled. Senior Planner Alvarez explained that, as noted in the May 2008 staff report, staff determined that the tree had not changed in its laced out condition and therefore no trimming was necessary at that time. However, given that the tree has now grown, staff felt it was warranted to direct the foliage owner to trim the tree as part of the maintenance. Chairman Perestam referred to a recent picture of the tree and asked staff, if annual maintenance were being done today, if the branches seen in the view window would be included in the trimming. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that the conditions of approval call for heavily lacing the entire tree, so the vegetation within the area in question would be thinned out. He added that staff would not ask the tree owner to remove entire branches for maintenance purposes. Commissioner Ruttenberg did not feel that responsibility rests with the Aelonys, as what they got with this view restoration permit is not what they thought they were getting. He noted that with the lacing the tree still blocks a tremendous amount of protectable view. He also did not think responsibilities rests with the Kuljises because they trimmed the trees in compliance with what staff said the Planning Commission ruling was. He also did not think staff was responsible for this dilemma because staff presented the Planning Commission with a resolution that the trees must be heavily laced. He felt that to some extent the responsibility could be his, as this was the first view restoration case he heard as a Planning Commissioner, and at that time he did not clearly understand the differences between heavily lacing and creating a window versus topping a tree. He thought what he was voting for was to create a view window, because that is where the protectable view is. At the time of his vote he felt this tree was a healthy tree and a view window could be created by removing the branches entirely. Planning Commission Minutes November 25,2008 Page 18 Vice Chairman Lewis agreed, stating he had the same level of inexperience with view restoration at that time, and when participating in the vote he too mistakenly thought he was voting to create a view window. Commissioner Tomblin stated that all he has to base his decision on is what staff has presented to the Planning Commission at this meeting, as he was not on the Commission at the time this view restoration case was originally heard. He was not comfortable discussing what the intent of the Commission was at the original hearing. Commissioner Knight explained that the Planning Commission directed that selected limbs be removed in the view area, and in that sense the trimming was complied with. When voting for this, he did not want to see a bare trunk. However, the selected limb removal that did occur did not achieve what the Planning Commission was attempting to achieve in restoring the view. He did not think a complete window should be created, as that was not his intention at the time, but he did think the Commission should readdress what selected branches should be removed. Chairman Perestam did not think the Planning Commission made the right decision when voting for this view restoration case. If he had it to do over, he would probably do something much more radical in terms of trimming. He stated that he was in favor of removing the two branches on the left and one branch on the right, pointing to the photograph to identify the branches he was discussing. He also was in favor of trimming back some branches on the left back towards the trunk. Director Rojas clarified on the photo the two branches on the left side that are proposed to be removed are actually one branch. Vice Chairman Lewis asked staff if they were comfortable with what has been discussed by the Commission regarding the additional limb removal as well as trimming the sides of the tree to give it symmetry. Senior Planner Alvarez answered that staff is comfortable with taking this specific request to the foliage owners. He stated that staff will provide a photograph with cut back lines and tree limb removal areas inserted. Vice Chairman Lewis asked if a photograph can be brought back to the Planning Commission after the trimming has been completed, to confirm that the trimming was done as intended by the Commission. Director Rojas answered that the Commission can direct this be brought back to the Commission to review the trimming. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that, for clarification, a Resolution be brought back to the Planning Commission for review which clarifies the decision. He was not comfortable taking a vote until he was sure all of the Commissioners were talking about the same thing when discussing the trimming and branch removal. Planning Commission Minutes November 25,2008 Page 19 Director Rojas suggested that the Commission continue the public hearing to review and discuss the Resolution and staff will provide a photograph showing trimming outlines. He noted that the first available meeting would be on January 27, 2009 Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to continue the public hearing to January 27, 2009 and directed staff to come back with a Resolution for review, seconded by Vice Chairman Lewis. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Tetreault recused. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8. Pre-agenda for the meeting of December 9, 2008 The pre-agenda was discussed and approved as presented. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 25,2008 Page 20